Talk:Prospect Heights, Brooklyn

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Encyclopedia of New York City

The reference for The Encyclopedia of New York City should be changed from Columbia University Press to Yale University Press. I think that Columbia might have published a previous edition, but the one currently available is definitely published by Yale.

There was a 1991 edition, I think, but the 1995 edition was from Yale and the NY Historical Society. I have greatly expanded the footnote with full bibliographic details and ISBN. Shakescene (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary dispute

RE: unsigned comments below from Optonline IP 156.47.15.10

I have adopted a compromise wording. But look, one more time and slower: you've mentioned copies of the same map at three different locations now, including City Planning, community board, etc. The problem with those maps is that they do not show a boundary. It's fine that neighborhoods change. The point is that to give evidence of change you need a source of equivalent authority and contemporaneity to the encyclopedia which actually cites a boundary, and none of those show a boundary. Also, the standard here is not how things work in NYC, but how they work on Wikipedia--it does not defer to what you someone says is commonly accepted; it defers to published sources. CHE 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link to the map of New York City neighborhoods produced by the New York City Department of City Planning. Note that "Prospect Heights" is divided almomst in HALF by wahsington avenue. It is NOT the eastern boundary. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neighbor/neighl.shtml

The Encylopedia of New York is not the definitive source. Looking through the descriptions of other neighborhoods shows that the bounudaries it lists do not match the boundaries that are commonly accepted (and those noted in separate wikipedia definitions). Again, NYC neighborhood boundaries are constantly changing. Note that the Encyclopedia of NY doesn't even have an entry for Nolita. Granted, I hate the name and concept of that neighborhood, but it is a neighborhood by popular use. It defines an area as much as any other neighborhood. That's how things work in NYC.

Between the map of neighborhood produced by New york City's Department of city Planning, and the map from the local Community Board, it is abundantly clear that the boundary is well east of Washington avenue.

Case closed!!!

RE: unsigned comments below from Optonline IP 156.47.15.10

(a) It's almost certainly disingenuous to say that you've been "following the controversy." Despite that you haven't signed any of your comments, you, or someone at this same IP address, has made ~~most~~ four of the edits changing the boundary from Washington to Bedford.
(b) This "community board" source you're citing is the same one I mentioned back on July 23. It does NOT show any boundary at all for Prospect Heights, since it simply has the word extend east as long as it takes to print. Since it shows no boundary, it can't be an authority on the boundary. The one authoritative source cited so far has been the Encyclopedia of the City of New York.
(c) Regarding your previous remarks that "the description should reflect what people call the area": if you can find an authoratative source saying that Bedford "is what people call the boundary," then that would be great. However, short of that, your experience of what people call it (which contradicts my own experience) counts on Wikipedia as Original Research, and so falls on wrong side of the main rule, No Original Research. Wikipedia defaults to an authoritative, published source. If you produce an equivalently authoritative source to the Encyclopedia, well, THEN we would have a genuine disagreement.
(d) It's not clear to me that 10 years is a significant enough time that parts of Crown Heights would stop being Crown Heights.
(e) What "the area has gentrified" has anything to do with whether the area is called PH or Crown Heights, I have no idea, though what it appears to suggest--that the area, if it becomes wealthier, should no longer be called Crown Heights just for that reason--is pretty offensive. CHE 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the controversy about the western boundary. The vast majority of maps that I've found show prospect heights going well east of Washington Avenue. If anyone had the final answer, I would say it was the local community board. I looked on their website and found that their map showed that Prospect Hieghts extended far east of Washington Avenue. See http://www.brooklyncb8.org/maps.htm#neighborhoods

I think this puts this issue to rest for once and for all.

Every map that I've been able to find indicates that Prospect Heights continues well past Washington Avenue to the east. The neighborhood boundary has definitely changed.

You haven't cited any map in any published source that actually lists a boundary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.15.9 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neighborhood boundaries and names are constantly changing. This is how New York City has always been. The Encylopedia of New York, which is now 10 years old, is not the definitive source. There is no clear cut answer. Everyone has an agenda on where to place the boundary. Wikipedia is not meant to ste an agenda so the description should reflect what people call the area. And by the way, the area has gentrified. This is what happens in New York

No, Wikipedia relies on published sources as the arbiter of what is fact. If you feel that the Encyclopedia of New York is outdated, then you need to cite a more recent source that supports the boundaries you claim. "The area has gentrified" is not a source, and is actually quite offensive as justification for changing the boundary of a neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.15.9 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who ever edited back to bedford ave should be shot! but anyway bedford is part of crown heights! and bedstuy ! not prospect heights. smells like a realtor changing this.

Washington has always been the boundary, and nobody even discussed the idea of Bedford being anything other than Crown Heights before gentrification and greedy realtors hit the area. That NYC map isn't really convincing- I think they just couldn't fit the words Prospect Heights inside the real boundaries with the size font they were using. If you turn up an actual document that spells out such a boundary explicitly (with text, or as a map with clearly defined boundaries) I'd be more inclined to agree. The Encyclopedia of the City of New York (Yale Univ Press) lists Washington as the boundary.

If Washington has "always been the boundary," why is Prospect Heights High School on Classon? Viciouslies (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always thought that Washington Ave was the Eastern boundary, and so, in agreement with you, was headed to look for documentation for that view, so that Bedford could be expunged once and for all, and turned up from the NYC government the following, which places the boundary at Bedford: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lucds/bk8profile.pdf Is there any good documentation to support Washington Ave? CHE 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks I posted the info from the Brooklyn Eagle regarding the boundaries being in question since 1889. This has been an issue since day 1. However I still lean towards the boundary as Washington and NOT Bedford. I will try to research this some more. Bidofthis 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

This page definitely needs some more fixing up. I tried to remove the non-neutral point-of-view material, and make it more neutral than it was in various ways. But the article could use some citations for the current development controversy section, and more filling out generally. CHE 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some further neutral-POV cleanup. Mrnorwood 01:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

This article cites and promotes a local restaurant and website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Heights%2C_Brooklyn#Culture

Promotion of a business and a personal website (even if it is sold as a community site) is not a neutral POV, in my opinion. The restaurant may have some local historic value, but I see no evidence to back that up. The inclusion of personal website, especially one that contains advertising and whose revenue may be increased through linking from this Wikipedia page is to me, inappropriate.

Remove it. Alansohn 19:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tillamook Cheddar

I love that this neighborhood only boasts five notable residents--one of who is a dog! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.0.133 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ending the border wars

There's a lot of debate above about where the Eastern boundary of the neighborhood is. I live in the area (not Prospect Heights but quite close) and have heard a number of things. The one thing we can say for sure is that there is a dispute. I used a couple of (not so good) blog-type sources to illustrate that fact. More importantly, I found a NYT article from 2004 which says many residents see Franklin as the Eastern border, which obviously contradicts what the Kenneth Jackson-edited Encyclopedia of NYC said back in 1995. So clearly there is not agreement, though given the sources (and my own experience as a Brooklynite) it seems likely that the general consensus (and the boundary of Prospect Heights) is moving Eastward. I'm afraid NYC neighborhood boundaries (and names) are too often at the mercy of gentrification, though we should still report both views here as we do now.

Anyhow I hope my recent additions put the above dispute to rest, until of course real estate agents start claiming that Utica Avenue is right in the middle of Prospect Heights and/or rename all of central Brooklyn Park Slope. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. A brief aside in a real estate article does not rise to the same level of evidence as the dedicated entry for Prospect Heights in Kenneth Jackson's book. And as discussed above, a discussion on Brooklynian is original research on your part, not a published source. This is far from "layed to rest." Since as you say in your own argument above, the clear motivation for the push to move the boundary east lies with the real estate agents, how about we compromise and let the entry reflect this, as in my most recent edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.15.9 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a source for that, I'd be fine with it, but we don't have one now. The NYT article says nothing about real estate agents—it just says residents have come to view the boundary as changed in recent years. I would argue it is actually a better source than Jackson's encyclopedia, which is simply outdated on this particular question. Since the view that the border is Franklin is a recent one, it's hardly surprising it's not included in a 1995 book.

If you want to remove the blog-sources I added that's fine—I look at them as primary sources, which are to be used rarely, but which provide illustration of a boundary dispute evident in other reliable sources, so I don't have a problem with them. However if original research is your concern, obviously the fact that you and I think real estate agents have a lot to do with this is quite irrelevant—we need a source and cannot include that info unless we have one, so I'm removing it.

Finally I'll admit to not understanding what the big deal is overall. I'm guessing you know the area (as I do), and if you do you know that people debate about the border between Crown Heights and Prospect Heights—that's a simple fact well-known by any area resident. We now have sources that illustrate that, and I think it's sufficient for us to cite those sources and point to the fact that there is a controversy, without "blaming" real-estate agents or anyone else for trying to expand the boundaries of Prospect Heights. If you find sources discussing that then it's a different matter, but I did not find any when I went looking.

Oh also please try to sign your talk page comments using the signature button at the top of the edit box, or you can just type four tildes (i.e. four ~) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording In the past few years, many real estate agents have attempted to push the boundary as far east as Franklin Avenue does not seem to be supported by the sourced NYT article; a scan of the Times story seems free of such a specific, and somewhat accusatory, claim. Did I miss a passage, or is this POV that the sentence could do without? 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not supported by the article, and I've changed the wording accordingly. Perhaps this version will be agreeable to everyone. I think it's sufficiently sourced and describes the differing opinions fairly accurately. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to real estate agents for now. Would you accept a link to Corcoran "Prospect Heights" entries with addresses east of Washington as a source for that statement? In the meantime, I have adapted a more neutral wording, since your "in the 21st century" frame makes it sound like there has been an evolution toward what is now the accepted border, rather than a push by a dedicated group in one direction.24.45.15.9 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral yet. Even 'some have attempted to push' implies that 'some' have an agenda; if there is a desire to address the boundary issue more extensively, the end of the 'geography' section looks like the place. But it needs to be NPOV. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course some have an agenda, otherwise there would be no impetus to change!24.45.15.9(talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps the intro section should have the traditional boundaries and the entire discussion of the "controversy" should be moved to the end of the geography section. 24.45.15.9 (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24.45 your current version is simply not acceptable. We go on what sources say, not what we would prefer to say. The NYT article absolutely does not say "some have attempted to push the boundary" - that is, again, your point of view and is a blatant misrepresentation of the secondary source. My version, which noted that "increased demand for housing in the neighborhood has led some area residents to view the boundary as being as far east as Franklin Avenue" is an accurate summary of the relevant paragraph in the Times article. If you want to play with that wording a bit that's fine (though I can't imagine what the problem with it would be), but your version is a non-starter since it is not based on sources but rather your own POV.

If you prefer to say "past few years" instead of early 21st century, okay, but you're forgetting that Wikipedia will (hopefully) be here in 5 or 10 years, which is why "past few years" should always be avoided. I'm not trying to make it seem that there is "an evolution toward what is now the accepted border" (I don't care, whereas you seem to be rather invested in Washington as the border, for whatever reason), but it is a fact that Washington is the "traditional" border as you noted and that recently that has been changing in the minds of some people. Overall this is a bizarre thing to argue about since it is so trivial, and since it is so indisputable that people disagree about the border. Again if you are familiar with the area you surely are well aware of this.

Also the only way to mention real-estate agents is if they are discussed in reliable secondary sources as pushing the boundary of Prospect Heights eastward—putting up a real estate listing for "Prospect Heights" that's on Classon and St. Johns, for example, is a severe original research problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't even see that this is important enough to be included in the lede. A more neutral phrasing, per Bigtimepeace's suggestion, would be preferable, and then move any elaboration on current boundaries, sticking to sourced material, to geography section. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I moved the discussion of the boundaries "controversy" to the geography section, leaving the traditional boundaries in the beginning. I reworded it so that it does not go beyond what is stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.15.9 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I altered that (because it very much did "go beyond what is stated in the article"), then you altered what I wrote, then I slightly altered what you wrote yet again. I hope we're done now. Nearly every time you have changed the wording, you have included points not mentioned in the NYT article (most recently a reference to Prospect Heights residents "east of Washington" when the article is about Crown Heights), and that's still somewhat the case but I can live with what we have now. This has been an absurdly protracted dispute over a trivial issue and I sincerely hope it's done now. Please do not change the current wording without discussing it here first. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that the residents saying that are from east of Washington is directly from the article, since the article is about Crown Heights! If you believe that the border is Franklin, then they are from east of Franklin, but at a minimum, the residents whose opinions the article refers to are from east of Washington.24.45.15.9 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point. First of all one can live West of Washington, still be in Prospect Heights, and think that Prospect Heights extends all the way east to Franklin. I know because I know people who think this, and because it is self-evidently true (for that matter one could live in Park Slope and think Franklin is the border—it's why "area residents" make a lot more sense). It is not solely "east of Washington" people who say this (that would be bizarre) and the NYT article does not say this (it refers only to "local residents," not CH residents). Second, as you say the article is about Crown Heights and refers to that neighborhoods residents, not Prospect Heights and residents there. When you say in the article "some residents east of Washington", readers will assume this refers to residents of Prospect Heights who live between Wash and Franklin, and not to everyone "east of Washington" regardless of neighborhood which, incidentally, would include not only Crown Heights residents but people in Canarsie, or Jamaica Queens for that matter. Do you see my point? Your wording is: A) Not true (you do not have to live east of Washington to have a certain view on the border); B) Not based on the source. So can you remove that bit? It simply isn't true or sourced, and I desperately want to be done with this argument. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are sticking to the article as the source of the statement, then the article does not say anything about the opinions of people west of Washington. All the article says is that some people in Crown Heights now believe the border to be Franklin. "Local residents" in an article about Crwon Heights clearly means residents of Crown Heights. Expanding this to include other people goes beyond the article cited. Your anecdotal experience of others that share this belief is not a valid source for Wikipedia. If you want to cite an article in which some people's opinion of a border is stated, I think it is only fair to also specify who those people are.24.45.15.9 (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be more satisfied if the sentence read, "In recent years as demand for housing within the traditional Prospect Heights boundaries has increased, some Crown Heights residents have come to view the area between Franklin Avenue and Washington Avenue, traditionally part of Crown Heights, as belonging to Prospect Heights." 24.45.15.9 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but a slight tweak will do. "In recent years as demand for housing within the traditional Prospect Heights boundaries has increased, some residents of the Crown Heights and Prospect Heights neighborhoods have come to view the area between Franklin Avenue and Washington Avenue, traditionally part of Crown Heights, as belonging to Prospect Heights."

The whole point of this thing is that the border is disputed. If you live on Classon and Sterling, according to us you may be in Prospect Heights or Crown Heights. You are "east of Washington" as you put it, but which neighborhood do you live in? We don't know so we need to mention residents of both neighborhoods, which has the added advantage of being utterly true, since "Crown Heights" residents are not the only people, obviously, who think the border is at Franklin (to suggest that would be absurd). Incidentally the original formulation of "local residents" in the NYT article to me means exactly that, not "residents of Crown Heights," so I would be fine with just saying that. But in an effort to end this excruciating discussion, I will absolutely go along with your version so long as it is adjusted to refer to residents in both Crown Heights and Prospect Heights, given that the very ambiguity about the border makes this necessary. Agreed? Please, for the love of God, agree. This is so unbelievably stupid. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still disagree. I don't think there's anything in that article that states that residents of Prospect Heights consider that the border. If you want to say "residents between Washington and Franklin", I could accept that, but nothing in the article even suggests that this is the opinion of anyone living west of Washington, or for that matter of anyone who lives in Prospect Heights. 24.45.15.9 (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Prospect Heights?" Our article says the border is disputed, right? A few edits ago you were saying that "residents east of Washington" think the border is at Franklin. Those were your words. According to one definition, some of the people who are east of Washington live in Prospect Heights, right? That's what they NYT says. You can't say "residents east of Washington" in one of your article edits and then turn around and have a problem with saying "residents of Prospect Heights" when they NYT article is making the point that part of the area east of Washington is considered Prospect Heights. Do you see the flaw in your logic?

And can you please, please explain to me why it is so important for you take a limited reading of an NYT article ("local residents" means only "Crown Heights" residents when the article does not say that at all, and when the article points out that the border is fuzzy such that "Crown Heights" is not precisely defined) just so you can keep out a fact that is obviously true—i.e. that some residents in both CH and PH view Franklin as the border? You are being incredibly tendentious, and I'd love it if you could explain why. All I want to do is have this article say that there is a debate/some confusion about the eastern border, which is amply illustrated by the ref to the NYC encyclopedia and the NYT article (when I first added the NYT article I assumed there would be no problem with it, because who could possible care?). I don't even want to say "who" is part of the debate but am trying to accommodate you just in order to be done with this nonsense. Every edit you have made has attempted to either eliminate the fact that some view the border as being further east of Washington, or claim that it's the fault of real estate developers, or claim that only some people in one little area think that when you must know for a fact that that is not true if you have any familiarity with the neighborhoods in question. Why on earth are you going to so much trouble to minimize the idea that some people view Franklin as the border? This is an extraordinary waste of my time and I'd least like to know what your stake in it is and why my time is being wasted, but first please respond to my first paragraph and to the point that the NYT article nowhere says "Local residents" = "Crown Heights residents." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is what is flawed here. The article is about Crown Heights. It is definitely a leap to assume that "local residents" refers to residents of a different neighborhood than the article is about (the title of the article is "LIVING IN/Crown Heights; Casting an Eye Toward Brooklyn's 'Hidden Jewel'"). To say that because some residents east of Washington have this belief, then some residents of Prospect Heights have this belief is circular reasoning. It is assuming what you are trying to prove. The article does not say that any residents of Prospect Heights believe this to be the border unless those between Washington and Franklin are considered Prospect Heights residents. The most recent edit reflects that.24.45.15.9 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This simply isn't true. The most recent edit neither denies that there is heterogeneity of belief about what the border is, nor blames it on real estate agents, but simply reflects the reality of what the article cited states. I have no stake in this other than not wanting my neighborhood misrepresented on Wikipedia. I could ask you the same questions. Why is it so important to you to have the article say that some Prospect Heights residents believe that the border is Franklin, when there is quite clearly no evidence of this from the source cited? It is really disingenuous of you to make this about me personally, attacking me ad hominem rather than addressing the substance of the debate.24.45.15.9 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply not replying to my point, namely that the border is disputed (our article says that), and thus we cannot say whether residents "in the area between Franklin Avenue and Washington Avenue" live in Crown Heights or Prospect Heights. The quoted bit is your wording in the current version, and you are basing it on an article that, you say, talks only about "Crown Heights", and which furthermore says that "Crown Heights" is currently thought by area residents to mean "east of Franklin." So if the article says Crown Heights is now considered to be "east of Franklin," if it is (as you assert) absolutely, only about people in "Crown Heights," then on what basis are you saying anything about people who live "in the area between Franklin Avenue and Washington Avenue," i.e. west of Franklin? According to your logic the NYT article is not about any of those people, since they do not live in "Crown Heights" as the article defines it. To put it another way, you talk about residents "in the area between Franklin Avenue and Washington Avenue", but the article says absolutely nothing about that whatsoever, so what is your basis for singling out that tiny area? Please address this inconsistency, as it was the main point of my previous comment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is that the article discusses what Crown Heights residents consider their western border, not what Prospect Heights residents consider their eastern border. I made one more edit to more precisely reflect what the article states.Third generation Brooklynite (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You win, just because I am sick of this, and because I know we'll fix this eventually, not because what you are saying makes sense. What we have right now (your version) is simply an inaccurate representation of reality, forced in because of your particular reading of one source. As a local you must be well aware that it is not only Crown Heights residents who see the border as being Franklin. In fact, you are probably well aware that, if anything, it's the people who live in the "disputed" area (particularly recent arrivals) who have the most invested in pushing the border of Prospect Heights eastward, simply so they can be included in "Prospect Heights" which has seen more gentrification and is therefore more "desirable." The article as currently worded (which again is based on your narrow reading of one two word phrase in an NYT article) gives the utterly false impression that Crown Heights residents have been anxious in recent years to sever the traditional Northwest section of their neighborhood from the rest of CH and make it part of "Prospect Heights" (presumably in order to allow more space for the gentrifiers), while implying (by omission) that other local residents outside Crown Heights still see the border as being at Washington. I live in Crown Heights (no matter where you draw the border) and am well aware that that portrayal has nothing to do with reality, and indeed is arguably the inverse of reality. There's no reason whatsoever to not simply say "some local residents" (which is based on the NYT article and actually accurate) other than that you don't want to say that. But as I said, you win, so enjoy that little victory and happy editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely about the reality. The reality is that a minority of individuals in the area, almost all from east of Washington, and a large number of real estate agents with a vested interest, would like to see the border pushed eastward. However, since we don't have an article that says that, I'd like to see the narrowest possible interpretation of the article in the Wiki entry. What is unacceptable to me is presenting the two sides as equal just because there are 2 articles, like people who want intelligent design given equal time with evolution in a biology class. There are people with both views, but they don't have equal validity and one group is clearly in the minority.Third generation Brooklynite (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There are people with both views, but they don't have equal validity and one group is clearly in the minority." <--- Please provide evidence for this assertion. From where I stand, there is no clear majority opinion. The border is in dispute. It is the current version of the article, which omits the multitude of evidence from the non-Washington side of the dispute, which is not NPOV. Viciouslies (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Just a suggestion, from the editor who expanded the Encyclopedia of NYC footnote (from his own copy of the book) but who hasn't set foot in Brooklyn in decades and has no personal opinion on this question (no dog in this fight). There has since been a new edition of the Encyclopedia (2008, I think). I don't have quick or ready access to the new edition in Providence, Rhode Island, but someone in New York might want to see if there's been any changes or reference to the disagreements (and if convenient, provide a reference to the new edition). If it's any consolation, see how confused neighborhood names and boundaries are in the Bronx at The Bronx#Neighborhoods and commercial districts. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion, not sure when I'd have a chance to do that but if I do I will. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the scoop. I just checked Amazon and Barnes and Noble and it looks like the 2009 edition has not yet been released. I'll be sure to add it to my library of local history books when it's available though!24.45.15.9 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now (July 2011) seen the 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of New York City, published in 2010 at $65 (hardbound). However, it was a cursory last-minute lookover on what will probably be my last-ever visit to the Borders bookstore in Providence, RI, so I didn't have a chance to consult the current entry for Prospect Heights (nor the final results I need for the 1997 Mayoral election). But the 2nd edition's now available; perhaps it's in a library or bookstore near you. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the part of the geography section that describes the letter to the editor in the Brooklyn Eagle. I think that the letter was previously misrepresented here, since the controversy described in the letter was over the name for what is now Park Slope, not over the boundaries of Prospect Heights. It's only real relevance to the Prospect Heights article at all is that it is the earliest use of that name that I have seen. Otherwise, it might add more to the Park Slope Wikipedia entry than to this one.24.45.15.9 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good change, the letter is an interesting tidbit, but you have framed it much better than the original version or my adjustment to it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a little more editing to tighten up the language a bit. I also finally registered a username.Third generation Brooklynite (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People keep writing that the border was "traditionally" Washington. Yet Prospect Heights High School is on Classon. That school is much older than this current controversy, so how can it be claimed that at some point in history the undisputed border was Washington? Viciouslies (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That high school is also south of Eastern Parkway, which is not disputed as the southern border of Prospect Heights. Thus the high school is not in Prospect Heights, whatever one's opinion on the eastern border. A building that clearly lies outside the neighborhood cannot logically be used as evidence for a border.24.45.10.41 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That response makes no sense. Are you really suggesting that the names of governmental institutions have no bearing on the definitions of neighborhoods? Isn't it a much more logical conclusion to simply acknowledge, at some point in the past, the definition of Prospect Heights included Prospect Heights High School and that neighborhood definitions, not being political boundaries such as city limits, change and adjust over time? Viciouslies (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has not even been any suggestion ever in any document mentioned in this discussion of Prospect Heights extending south of Eastern Parkway. Clearly it is possible for an institution that serves a neighborhood to lie outside that neighborhood. This is a more logical conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.8.55 (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of NYC, second edition

I have a copy of the Encyclopedia of New York City second edition, and I was asked to check what it says about the boundaries of this neighborhood. I have done so, and it gives the same boundaries as I see in the current version of this article: N: Atlantic Avenue, E: Washington Avenue, S: Eastern Parkway at Grand Army Plaza, and W: Flatbush Avenue. I've updated the ref in the article to indicate this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Demographics

The race/ethnicity profile in the Demographics section (paragraph 2) are from 2010 and don't align with the profile in the table at the top of the page. Asians, for instance, are described as being 0.1% in the demographics section and 7.7% in the table. Frank Lynch (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

77th or 78th Precinct?

There is a contradiction in the article regarding the precinct which covers Prospect Heights. The lead paragraph says it's the 78th, but in the section "Police and crime" it says the neighborhood is patrolled by the 77th, and goes on to discuss crime statistics for the 77th precinct. Frank Lynch (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to precinct maps Prospect Heights falls in both the 77th and 78th precincts, the dividing line being Vanderbilt Avenue. The vast majority of the 77th precinct is east of Washington Avenue, and having a section on police and crime driven by 77th precinct statistics could be seen as misleading. At the same time, little of the 78th precinct's territory is in Prospect Heights, and one could conclude that its statistics are similarly unrepresentative. Perhaps we should delete the section "Police and Crime" until such time as relevant statistics are available? Frank Lynch (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the section and revised the opening paragraph. Frank Lynch (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankenab, thanks for bringing this up. I disagree with your recent removal of the crime stats, however. Although Prospect Heights is indeed a small part of both precincts, I think it would help readers to mention the crime stats here, with an additional note that the neighborhood makes up a small section of each precinct. Removing the crime stats entirely doesn't help readers much, as they have to navigate through several articles to get to the correct stats. Please reconsider your deletion. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you seem to have reverted an edit where I was restoring a reference you added (which I undid inadvertently). Did you mean to do this? Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 25 Census tracts which lie within the 77th Precinct. (https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/PL20/st36_ny/censustract_maps/c36047_kings/DC20CT_C36047.pdf) Three of them (203, 205, and 207) roughly fit within the boundaries of Prospect Heights. Since those three are of a specific geography and not a random selection from the 25, it seems tenuous to me to suggest that the crime statistics of the 77th precinct as a whole can be used to form a judgment about crime in Prospect Heights. Also note that Census tracts 161 and 163, which are largely contained in the Prospect Heights boundaries, are not included at all in 77th Precinct figures. Frank Lynch (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for explaining. As to your point that census tracts 161 and 163 were excluded, this was why I added the 78th Precinct figures.

However, it may still be worth adding back the first sentence of the Police and Crime section anyway, just to mention that the neighborhood is in both precincts. Per WP:LEAD, this information should be in the body as well, not just in the lead section (which is a summary of the entire article). Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2.2 miles from Vanderbilt Avenue and Park Place to Ralph Avenue and Park Place, the western and easter bounds of Crown Heights, all within the 77th precinct. A lot can change in 2.2 miles. Frank Lynch (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder that all content in the lead should also be in the body. I added this information into the "Boundaries and Land Use" section. Frank Lynch (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]